W.P.(C) No. 18801 of 2016. Case: Manani Bariha Vs State of Odisha and Ors.. High Court of Orissa (India)
| Case Number | W.P.(C) No. 18801 of 2016 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Pradip Kumar Ray, Advocate and For Respondents: Samapika Mishra, Addl. Standing Counsel |
| Judges | Dr. Akshaya Kumar Rath, J. |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Article 226 |
| Judgement Date | January 02, 2017 |
| Court | High Court of Orissa (India) |
Judgment:
Dr. Akshaya Kumar Rath, J.
-
By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenge is made to the advertisement dated 17.9.2016 issued by the Child Development Project Officer, Khaprakhol, Dist.-Bolangir, opposite party No. 4, fixing the age limit for the post of Anganwadi Worker in respect of Nandupala Anganwadi Centre.
-
The case of the petitioner is that the opposite party No. 4 issued an advertisement on 17.9.2016 vide Annexure-1 to fill up the post of Anganwadi Worker in respect of Nandupala Anganwadi Centre. The petitioner, who has passed H.S.C. Examination, 2016 and belongs to scheduled tribe, applied for the same. She is otherwise eligible for the post. Due to the cut-off date fixing the age limit, her application was not considered.
-
Pursuant to issuance of notice, a counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite party Nos. 2 and 4. It is stated that the advertisement dated 17.9.2016 vide Annexure-1 was issued in accordance with the provisions laid down in the revised guidelines issued vide No. 145/SWCD dtd. 02.05.2007 of Government of Odisha in Women and Child Development Department, wherein it has been stipulated that the applicant for the post of Anganwadi Worker should have attained 18 years of age but below 43 years in the first day of the year in which the application has been invited. Thus a candidate below 18 years of age as on 01.01.2016 is not eligible for the post of Anganwadi Worker. It is further stated that the date of birth of the petitioner is 24.06.1998 and she was below 18 years of age as on 01.01.2016 and as such, she is not eligible for the said post.
-
Heard Mr. Pradip Kumar Ray, learned counsel for the petitioner and Miss Samapika Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-opposite parties.
-
Mr. Ray, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued with vehemence that fixing the minimum age limit as on 1.1.2016 is wholly unreasonable and the same has no nexus to the object sought to be achieved. He further submits that though the advertisement issued on 17.9.2016, but the cut-off date was fixed on 1.1.2016. There was a wide gap between the cut-off date and date of advertisement and as such the advertisement is liable to be quashed. He further submits that in the previous guidelines no such stipulation was there, but in the revised guidelines of 2007, the same has been inserted. He cited the decision of the apex Court in the case of Dr. Ami Lal Bhat vs. State...
To continue reading
Request your trial